Have you verified with Harald and Keith that they are NOT holding
up our Printer MIB forwarding as a draft standard? The e-mail reports
from PWG attendees at the Munich meeting suggested that our area directors
had some problems with the Printer MIB being forwarded to the IESG
as a draft standard.
If we are not forced to add MIME-types to the Printer MIB, then lets
not. Lets the box that has to deal with both IPP and the Printer MIB
do the mapping.
However, the real danger is that each implementor comes up with
his/her own mapping. That would be a disaster to interoperability.
What about the suggestion made to add an alias field to the Printer
Language Interpreter enum entries in the IANA registry as to
the corresponding MIME-type? We did exactly the same move
to the already established IANA character set registry when
we asked them to add a MIB-enum field to accommodate the
Printer MIB enum use of character set.
I was involved in corresonding with IANA on the character set registry
addition. If the rest of the PMP thinks adding this mapping information
to the registry would be helpful, I'll volunteer to request IANA
to add it to the Printer Interpreter Language enum registry (what
IANA calls "printer language").
At 17:44 09/03/97 PDT, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>Evidently there is some opinion in the IPP working group that
>the Printer MIB is stalled with the IETF because of the MIME vs
>enum discussion for interpreter types. I wanted to assure
>everyone within the PMP working group that as far as Chris and
>I are concerned this is not the case at all. Chris and I are
>working on taking the Printer MIB as currently defined forward
>to our Area Directors as a Draft Standard.
>>From the minutes of the last IPP conference call, an issue is
>going to be raised against the Printer MIB in the Atlanta IPP
>working group session to "keep the same Printer MIB registry,
>do not deprecate it, add a new optional, printerLangMIMEType".
>My position is and will be that the Printer MIB is closed and
>moving forward on the standards track. I have not seen enough
>justification to halt this process to add this new object.
>Lloyd Young Lexmark International, Inc.
>Senior Program Manager Dept. C14L/Bldg. 035-3
>Strategic Alliances 740 New Circle Road NW
>internet: email@example.com Lexington, KY 40550
>Phone: (606) 232-5150 Fax: (606) 232-6740